Of lunatics and asylums.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
Yes, it is a work in progress, we all know that.
Ah, so you are saying that nobody in the US or Europe can afford to maintain light aircraft, and that there is no way of ensuring airworthiness in those aircraft? Are you serious? How many light aircraft are there in the US compared to Australia?
Sorry, I have absolutely no interest in Aussie history, apart from the bit about you all being ex-convicts 
. I am also utterly uninterested in the minutiae and inanities of Australian legislation. I can, however, spot a system that doesn't work at ten paces.
You obviously don't adopt an entire system lock, stock and barrel. You adapt it to your environment, which is exactly what happens in Europe anyway - different countries interpret the rules differently, and apply them differently. If you think Australian pilots should have lower medical standards, fine, lower them.
I have far better things to do with my time than research Australian aviation history. I know that your system is broken, and none of you are able to fix it. I also know, having operated in it for many years, that the Euro system works well, far better than the NZ system does. The NZ system massively over-complicates the relatively simple needs of NZ aviation, and if you think Euro medical regulation is bad, try coming here where you need an Accredited Medical Conclusion every time you cough. Talk about a money-spinner for the doctors.
Yeah but your rules suck, so it is a bit of a wash, isn't it?
No, I am suggesting that you adopt a system that doesn't do that very thing.
You don't like EASA, I don't like FARs. Fine. Any other systems out there you might like? Maybe the Russian one? The bottom line is that you find yourself in a bureaucratic quagmire. In order to fix it, you need to go one way or the other. Choose your poison.
Or, more likely, do nothing for another 20 years.
Oh, and before I go, it isn't a whinge about one readback requirement. The NZ system is riddled with crap like that which is completely unnecessary, and is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to some incident or other. With each passing day, we get more and more out of step with the rest of the world.
Do you actually understand how little of a total regulatory suit JAA/EASA actually had/has, and how much remains to be done.
If you try and apply FAR/EASA(JAA) 145 to GA maintenance, it is un-affordable overkill, there is no continuing airworthiness set for small aircraft. Maintaining an A380 and a PA-28 are not quite the same thing.
If you understood, in depth, Commonwealth legislative history, from 1901 to the present, you would know that quite significant Australian legislation has been adopted "by reference" to US legislation. Our very first Trade Practices Legislation was the US Sherman Act, adopted by reference. That, in itself, is an interesting piece of history.
. I am also utterly uninterested in the minutiae and inanities of Australian legislation. I can, however, spot a system that doesn't work at ten paces.
Have you ever bothered to see how expensive the EASA pilot licensing requirements are, with ( but not only) the medical overkill, now about to require, amongst other totally unjustified impositions, an annual color vision test of a type that will knock out an estimated 10-20% of present pilots. Many of whom will have been operating satisfactorily for years, and have successfully passed previous color vision test.
I can only conclude that you have a very limited understanding of the various systems. Your understanding of the origins of our present regulations is obviously equally limited ---- which are, and have always been, far removed from the old Colonial Air Navigation Order 1945 (??), to which I think you refer. We have had our own Air Navigation Act 1920 since ---- wait for it ---- 1920, most of the ANRs were translated into CARs in 1988.
We are great at growing rules
what would you suggest we do, go back to Australia's previous setup, that severely disadvantaged Australian airlines, versus the international competition. A setup that markedly increase the cost of all aircraft into Australia, aircraft that had to be modified to meet Australia's unique and unjustified impositions.
You don't like EASA, I don't like FARs. Fine. Any other systems out there you might like? Maybe the Russian one? The bottom line is that you find yourself in a bureaucratic quagmire. In order to fix it, you need to go one way or the other. Choose your poison.
Or, more likely, do nothing for another 20 years.
Oh, and before I go, it isn't a whinge about one readback requirement. The NZ system is riddled with crap like that which is completely unnecessary, and is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to some incident or other. With each passing day, we get more and more out of step with the rest of the world.
Sorry, I have absolutely no interest in Aussie history, apart from the bit about you all being ex-convicts
You obviously don't adopt an entire system lock, stock and barrel. You adapt it to your environment, which is exactly what happens in Europe anyway - different countries interpret the rules differently, and apply them differently.
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 859/2008
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
SUBPART A
APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS
OPS 1.001
Applicability
OPS Part 1 prescribes requirements applicable to the operation of any civil aeroplane for the purpose of commercial air transportation by any operator whose principal place of business and, if any, registered office is in a Member State, hereafter called operator.
Ah, so you are saying that nobody in the US or Europe can afford to maintain light aircraft, and that there is no way of ensuring airworthiness in those aircraft? Are you serious? How many light aircraft are there in the US compared to Australia?
My dear fellow, as well as everything else, you do seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
The continuing airworthiness/maintenance requirements called up by FAR 91/121/122/135 have no relation to JAA/EASA maintenance requirements, NOR did I say the the FAA system doesn't work ---- quite the contrary.
Nor have I said other than the current Australian maintenance rules system ( and most of the rest) is a mess, and the next iteration looks like being immeasurably worse.
Perhaps the best example of the cost of EASA maintenance is the number of N registered aircraft based in Europe, or where N doesn't work, aircraft registered Isle of Mann, Bermuda etc., which can all be maintained to the FARs.
If you had the time to acquaint yourself with the facts, you would find that EASA recognizes that EASA 145 ( sort of harmonized with FAR 145) is overkill for other than heavy transport aircraft. 'Tis all buried in their documents.
Tootle pip!!
PS: apropos readbacks, are you really certain what you are talking about is home grown?? And not ICAO??
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You sure about that?
My dear fellow, as well as everything else, you do seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
If you had the time to acquaint yourself with the facts, you would find that EASA recognizes that EASA 145 ( sort of harmonized with FAR 145) is overkill for other than heavy transport aircraft. 'Tis all buried in their documents.
Interesting that China, Canada and most of the Gulf states are leaning towards EASA...
remoak...
I think you may be confusing DIFFERENCES (per article 38 of the Chicago Convention) and not (alleged) national preferences with respect to (or otherwise) compliance with COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 859/2008.
Anyway, LeadSled seems to be adequately addressing your 'confusion' about regulatory requirements, so I guess there's no point in any further attempts from me to change your mind.
I still reckon though that you ought to quit while you're so far behind!
I think you may be confusing DIFFERENCES (per article 38 of the Chicago Convention) and not (alleged) national preferences with respect to (or otherwise) compliance with COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 859/2008.
Anyway, LeadSled seems to be adequately addressing your 'confusion' about regulatory requirements, so I guess there's no point in any further attempts from me to change your mind.
I still reckon though that you ought to quit while you're so far behind!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rose,
From the emotive ramblings of your posts, I would have to guess that CASA has pussed you orf big time!
The fact that you attack with such hate in your posts says to me that maybe you tried it on and got caught? What was it? 3 CIR's in one day?? Yeah I would question the hell out of that too! And I was an ATO so I speak from experience. You got busted didn't you? Now you think if you throw enough horse manure, it will stick right? Bless your little cotton socks. Keep it up, I'm sure it will work.
CASA doesn't just ground an operation by saying "Too bloody late mate". There is way more to it than that and if you don't know it, you are most definitely in the wrong game.
What are these blatant "manipulation" of regulations you talk about, or the "Corruption" you sprout?
Out with it!
DB
From the emotive ramblings of your posts, I would have to guess that CASA has pussed you orf big time!
The fact that you attack with such hate in your posts says to me that maybe you tried it on and got caught? What was it? 3 CIR's in one day?? Yeah I would question the hell out of that too! And I was an ATO so I speak from experience. You got busted didn't you? Now you think if you throw enough horse manure, it will stick right? Bless your little cotton socks. Keep it up, I'm sure it will work.
CASA doesn't just ground an operation by saying "Too bloody late mate". There is way more to it than that and if you don't know it, you are most definitely in the wrong game.
What are these blatant "manipulation" of regulations you talk about, or the "Corruption" you sprout?
Out with it!
DB
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah well maybe you need to quit with your alleged knowledge of EASA too. Having operated in France for a number of years, I can tell you that there are some local practices that will not change under EASA, mostly because they are already the subject of legislation that will never be allowed to change. Maybe you need to live there to understand... Exceptions will creep in, exactly as they did under JAA. Why you think the current EASA rules are immutable is beyond me. It's very early days to be making sweeping statements about universal compliance, the legislation isn't even complete yet AFAIK.
I'm not in the slightest bit confused, but you guys have reminded me why I try not to study aviation legislation in my spare time. I'll leave you to it, I have far better things to do with my time.
I'd still be fascinated to know why Australia cannot do what China, Canada, Singapore and most of the Emirates have done, and move closer to EASA. That's a pretty diverse group of political structures... your resistance seems to be based more on good old Aussie refusal to keep pace with the world than any tangible reason. For example, light aircraft - there are far more of those operating under EASA than there are in Australia, they seem to have a solid maintenance solution and complying with EASA certainly hasn't priced them beyond the means of the owners. The proliferation of N-reg aircraft is mainly to do with the cost of training and the relative ease of pilot certification under FARs. Once you take out the classics, non-airworthy airframes and other oddities, there aren't that many anyway.
Guess what - raising the bar sometimes costs money!
Anyway... have fun trying to get your regulatory reform going...
I'm not in the slightest bit confused, but you guys have reminded me why I try not to study aviation legislation in my spare time. I'll leave you to it, I have far better things to do with my time.
I'd still be fascinated to know why Australia cannot do what China, Canada, Singapore and most of the Emirates have done, and move closer to EASA. That's a pretty diverse group of political structures... your resistance seems to be based more on good old Aussie refusal to keep pace with the world than any tangible reason. For example, light aircraft - there are far more of those operating under EASA than there are in Australia, they seem to have a solid maintenance solution and complying with EASA certainly hasn't priced them beyond the means of the owners. The proliferation of N-reg aircraft is mainly to do with the cost of training and the relative ease of pilot certification under FARs. Once you take out the classics, non-airworthy airframes and other oddities, there aren't that many anyway.
Guess what - raising the bar sometimes costs money!
Anyway... have fun trying to get your regulatory reform going...
---- what China, Canada, Singapore and most of the Emirates have done, and move closer to EASA.
One of the great freedoms we enjoy, in our part of the world, is the freedom to be wrong, and it is great to, once again, see you exercising that freedom. To be wrong!!
China is straight down the FAA line, the new CAACRs are so close to the FARs that anybody doing business in China had found that the easiest way to translate the CAACRs into English is to have a copy of the FARs by your side, and just translate the differences ----- which are slight. This from very recent personal experience.
Indeed, the recent Minister for Aviation, Yang Uan Uan took the lead in this recent revamp of the PRC aviation regulations ---- he was in no doubt as to his preferences, and it was not EASA.
Although the new Canadian rules don't look like the FARs, the effective differences are so small, that such things as the Canadian MRO system paperwork is ( and has long been) accepted by FAA. In fact, the Canadian DoT lawyer who headed the recent Canadian (successful) revamp is a chap, with whom I have worked, on and off, for about fifteen years.
In my opinion, the new Canadian rules have a lot to commend them, in their way, they are as well done as the NZ rules ---- but many small countries are leaning towards NZ because they are (largely) the FARs with years of accumulated redundant rules and political rubbish removed ---- and everybody can speak the same language.
In the best traditions of Singapore pragmatism, all the Singapore based MRO run both EASA and FAA certified workshops, and the local rules don't intrude. The CAASR are a bit of a mixture, but lean heavily on long standing UK (pre JAA) BCARs..
Tootle pip!!
PS: Such is the inertia in Brussels, that too much of the JAA/EASA rules don't mean much, you have to wade through piles of TGLs, some 8/9 years old --- and you do know what a TGL is, don't you??
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As DB writes - how do you do three renewals in one day and comply with the PDP requirements?
Did the ATO charge say $450 per test? $1400 for the day - now that's good money! Was there any GST? It's time this ATO got out of the game.
Did the ATO charge say $450 per test? $1400 for the day - now that's good money! Was there any GST? It's time this ATO got out of the game.
Leadsled,
All that information is great, albeit, confusing to the aviator in the street ... but that's not we are trained for.
CASA, with it's hoard of experts, has the responsibility and directive to sort through all the options that you allude to and come up with a workable solution for us. That's what we pay them for.
All we ask is that they pull their fingers out, get their arses into gear and get on with it ... before we all pass on to the other side.
If they can't ... then pass on the responsibility to someone else who can.
All that information is great, albeit, confusing to the aviator in the street ... but that's not we are trained for.
CASA, with it's hoard of experts, has the responsibility and directive to sort through all the options that you allude to and come up with a workable solution for us. That's what we pay them for.
All we ask is that they pull their fingers out, get their arses into gear and get on with it ... before we all pass on to the other side.
If they can't ... then pass on the responsibility to someone else who can.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled
If you are not aware of the ongoing discussions between the CAAC and EASA, you are clearly not as well informed as you think you are.
China is not "straight down the FAA line", yes they had a lot of US input but they insisted that their system be based on ICAO and not directly from the FARs. One of the reasons for this is that it does not tie them to an FAR structure and allows them to change their regulatory system as their industry matures (including evaluating EASA).
There is obviously a strong historical tie between the US and Chinese aviation that dates back to the manufacture of MD82s there, but the Americans themselves insisted that the CAAC follow ICAO and not FAA, which can be seen in the adoption of China Civil Aviation Regulation Part No. 121, an ICAO standard, not a US one. In fact, the FAA required that the CAAC base their standards on ICAO and not FARs.
In the case of Canada, they have gone way further towards EASA than you suggest. They even have their own link on the EASA website.
But, whatever. You are looking at this from an engineering perspective and I am looking at it from a Flight Ops perspective. By what you have written so far I suspect you are not expert in the Flight Ops side - it certainly looks that way from your attitude towards EASA.
Whichever way you slice it, the world is eventually going to have two dominant systems, and one of them is EASA. China will probably go their own way in the end, despite their current romance with EASA. All that really matters to them is ICAO compliance.
The idea that EASA is unworkable or inefficient, well you can think that if you want but I doubt many would agree with you.
TGL = Temporary Guidance: Leaflet (if you really must insist on getting into a pissing contest).
If you are not aware of the ongoing discussions between the CAAC and EASA, you are clearly not as well informed as you think you are.
China is not "straight down the FAA line", yes they had a lot of US input but they insisted that their system be based on ICAO and not directly from the FARs. One of the reasons for this is that it does not tie them to an FAR structure and allows them to change their regulatory system as their industry matures (including evaluating EASA).
There is obviously a strong historical tie between the US and Chinese aviation that dates back to the manufacture of MD82s there, but the Americans themselves insisted that the CAAC follow ICAO and not FAA, which can be seen in the adoption of China Civil Aviation Regulation Part No. 121, an ICAO standard, not a US one. In fact, the FAA required that the CAAC base their standards on ICAO and not FARs.
In the case of Canada, they have gone way further towards EASA than you suggest. They even have their own link on the EASA website.
But, whatever. You are looking at this from an engineering perspective and I am looking at it from a Flight Ops perspective. By what you have written so far I suspect you are not expert in the Flight Ops side - it certainly looks that way from your attitude towards EASA.
Whichever way you slice it, the world is eventually going to have two dominant systems, and one of them is EASA. China will probably go their own way in the end, despite their current romance with EASA. All that really matters to them is ICAO compliance.
The idea that EASA is unworkable or inefficient, well you can think that if you want but I doubt many would agree with you.
TGL = Temporary Guidance: Leaflet (if you really must insist on getting into a pissing contest).
Remoak,
How much work have you actually done in China??
With the CAAC?? How much experience have you actually got, working directly with the source CAACRs ?? Not what you think you know, but actually "hand on".
As I previously said, isn't freedom great, including the freedom to be wrong, a privilege you exercise on a continuing basis.
I guess you could say I have had a long interest in engineering matters and design/certification/manufacturing, but with about 25,000h in the book, with various CPL/ATPL in a variety of countries, UK,US,AU,NZ, with the usual GA types through to quite a few considerably larger aircraft---- maybe, just maybe, I know a little about flight operations as well.
These days, I work, on a regular, almost daily, basis with the EASA/PRC/CA/US/NZ regs., but what would I know?
Are you seriously suggesting the FARs are not ICAO compliant??
You are way off beam.
Tootle pip!!
If you actually appreciated what I said about EASA, the approach of the EASA ( not JAA) regulatory framework is unworkable in Australia, because the EASA (not JAA) approach is "outcome based", Australia is ultra-prescriptive criminal law.
That is not a criticism of EASA, it is a statement of fact.
How much work have you actually done in China??
With the CAAC?? How much experience have you actually got, working directly with the source CAACRs ?? Not what you think you know, but actually "hand on".
As I previously said, isn't freedom great, including the freedom to be wrong, a privilege you exercise on a continuing basis.
I guess you could say I have had a long interest in engineering matters and design/certification/manufacturing, but with about 25,000h in the book, with various CPL/ATPL in a variety of countries, UK,US,AU,NZ, with the usual GA types through to quite a few considerably larger aircraft---- maybe, just maybe, I know a little about flight operations as well.
These days, I work, on a regular, almost daily, basis with the EASA/PRC/CA/US/NZ regs., but what would I know?
Are you seriously suggesting the FARs are not ICAO compliant??
You are way off beam.
Tootle pip!!
If you actually appreciated what I said about EASA, the approach of the EASA ( not JAA) regulatory framework is unworkable in Australia, because the EASA (not JAA) approach is "outcome based", Australia is ultra-prescriptive criminal law.
That is not a criticism of EASA, it is a statement of fact.
Leadsled,
All condescension aside ...
Can't we also change to an outcomes based system?
Just because it was, doesn't mean it has to be!
Talk about 'resistent to change'
All condescension aside ...
If you actually appreciated what I said about EASA, the approach of the EASA ( not JAA) regulatory framework is unworkable in Australia, because the EASA (not JAA) approach is "outcome based", Australia is ultra-prescriptive criminal law.
Just because it was, doesn't mean it has to be!
Talk about 'resistent to change'
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled me old china,
Well that is a rather large willy you are waving there... careful you don't put someone's eye out.
I like that you think that you know everything and nobody else knows anything. Kind of sums up the mentality of certain types of Australian - that well-known arrogance that has got your regulatory system where it now is.
You seem to be ill-informed on some subjects and just obtuse on others. Well, whatever floats your boat. I know what I know (which is more than you think), and frankly I think you are full of it.
Tootle pip!
Well that is a rather large willy you are waving there... careful you don't put someone's eye out.
I like that you think that you know everything and nobody else knows anything. Kind of sums up the mentality of certain types of Australian - that well-known arrogance that has got your regulatory system where it now is.
You seem to be ill-informed on some subjects and just obtuse on others. Well, whatever floats your boat. I know what I know (which is more than you think), and frankly I think you are full of it.
Tootle pip!
Australia is ultra-prescriptive criminal law
The ones blamed for it had a deal with the Dems to have the instrument disallowed..and got backstabed by their own
The people involved just handed the CASA OLC a licence to kill..you are caught, you are guilty..now prove you are innocent....Idiots all!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South of the Border
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dangly Bits !!
What are these blatant "manipulation" of regulations you talk about, or the "Corruption" you sprout?
Well - I never !!
The only manipulation of the regs that seems to be occuring appears to be emanating from those whose duty it befalls to uphold those regs.
Perjury, pervert the course of justice, etc seems to be the current go.
Not sure of the dark, dangerous, and smelly place that you have your head, but it sure as hell is rumoured that it reeks of an almighty ignorance of what is happening in the workplace. (FYI - a place where the dollar is actually earnt/lost)
Could you be one of THEM that Rose speaks of ?
Oh - and the latest - the Skull from YSCB is demanding that He personally signs every C&T Training approval issued. That is, after the subjective interpretation of a non (almost) existant CASA based, formal C&T schedule, that requires double the C&T that ICAO and the FAA checks that probably should be standard world wide. But, oh no, not CASA. Once again, the industry is being raped by, well, you guessed! Repeat offender?? Who knows?
Well - I never !!
The only manipulation of the regs that seems to be occuring appears to be emanating from those whose duty it befalls to uphold those regs.
Perjury, pervert the course of justice, etc seems to be the current go.
Not sure of the dark, dangerous, and smelly place that you have your head, but it sure as hell is rumoured that it reeks of an almighty ignorance of what is happening in the workplace. (FYI - a place where the dollar is actually earnt/lost)
Could you be one of THEM that Rose speaks of ?
Oh - and the latest - the Skull from YSCB is demanding that He personally signs every C&T Training approval issued. That is, after the subjective interpretation of a non (almost) existant CASA based, formal C&T schedule, that requires double the C&T that ICAO and the FAA checks that probably should be standard world wide. But, oh no, not CASA. Once again, the industry is being raped by, well, you guessed! Repeat offender?? Who knows?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa Simon! I don't think I deserve to be called names for asking someone to show proof of the corruption they claim. Rose could be talking about my husband here.
Please don't attack ME for simply asking for proof.
Please don't attack ME for simply asking for proof.
Remoak
After reading your posts I could be forgiven for wondering if the following comment might apply to someone else as well:
After reading your posts I could be forgiven for wondering if the following comment might apply to someone else as well:
You seem to be ill-informed on some subjects and just obtuse on others. Well, whatever floats your boat. I know what I know (which is more than you think), and frankly I think you are full of it.
Dangly. There are a number of accurate accounts of CASA used "administrative action" in past years, to remove an operator or pilot who some FOI or AWI had a grundge again but legal action through a Court of law would never stick. Fortunately, the legislation has now been changed to limit CASA's discretionary powers.
I believe at least one operator in Western Australia has now initiated action through the Courts to seek damages from CASA and individual CASA employees.
Research PPRuNe.
I believe at least one operator in Western Australia has now initiated action through the Courts to seek damages from CASA and individual CASA employees.
Research PPRuNe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love the one about
A very distressed lady staggers into a police station and complains:
"Help officer, I've just been Graped ! ".
Calmly, the bobby says, 'surely madam, you mean raped'.
Oh no she replies,; "there was a bunch of them".
Go figure. Not rocket science is it .
"Help officer, I've just been Graped ! ".
Calmly, the bobby says, 'surely madam, you mean raped'.
Oh no she replies,; "there was a bunch of them".
Go figure. Not rocket science is it .
